1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Details of the disposition

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the statement in Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Plaintiff’s assertion of the parties to the instant disposition should be revoked on the ground that it is unlawful for the following reasons.

The Plaintiff’s assertion related to Article 18(1)1 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta which has errors in the application of statutes or non-existence of the grounds for disposal (hereinafter “Act on Livestock Excreta”) has obtained the instant permission by obtaining permission for modification or filing a report on modification in accordance with normal procedures, and completed the extension of discharge facilities in accordance with the details of the permission for modification or the report on modification, and

In the process of obtaining permission for change, the Plaintiff did not use false or other unlawful means, such as falsely cultivating or manipulating the documents or materials for examination.

The Defendant’s non-compliance with the Plaintiff’s terms and conditions of permission or the act of discharging livestock excreta without permission is not related to the permission for change or report on change.

The plaintiff does not constitute a case where the plaintiff prescribed in Article 18 (1) 1 of the Livestock Excreta Act has obtained permission for alteration by fraud or other improper means.

The Defendant’s assertion related to Article 18(1)10 of the Livestock Excreta Act presents Article 18(1)10 of the Livestock Excreta Act as the ground for the disposition of this case when the Plaintiff discharged livestock excreta without permission at the court of first instance, as seen below. This constitutes an additional modification of the ground for illegal disposition, as it seriously infringes the Plaintiff’s right to defense in the lawsuit.

In addition, although the plaintiff was negligent in not completely disposing of livestock excreta, it is not true that livestock excreta was intentionally discharged without permission, there is no reason for disposal.